Symphysis-fundus height measurement to predict small-for-gestational-age status at birth: a systematic review

Aase Serine D Pay, Johanna Wiik, Bjørn Backe, Bo Jacobsson, Annika Strandell, Atle Klovning, Aase Serine D Pay, Johanna Wiik, Bjørn Backe, Bo Jacobsson, Annika Strandell, Atle Klovning

Abstract

Background: Fetal growth restriction is among the most common and complex problems in modern obstetrics. Symphysis-fundus (SF) height measurement is a non-invasive test that may help determine which women are at risk. This study is a systematic review of the literature on the accuracy of SF height measurement for the prediction of small-for-gestational-age (SGA) status at birth in unselected and low-risk pregnancies.

Methods: The Medline, Embase, Cinahl, SweMed, and Cochrane Library databases were searched with no limitation on publication date (through September 2014), which returned 722 citations. Two reviewers then developed a short list of 51 publications of possible relevance and assessed them using the following inclusion criteria: cohort study of test accuracy performed in a routine prenatal care setting; SF height measurement for all participants; classification of SGA, defined as birth weight (BW) < 10th, 5th, or 3rd percentile or ≥ one or two standard deviations below the mean; study conducted in Northern, Western, or Central Europe; USA; Canada; Australia; or New Zealand; and sufficient data for 2 × 2 table construction. Quality of the included studies was assessed in duplicate using criteria suggested by the Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager 5.3 software was used to analyze the data, including plotting of summary receiver operating curve spaces.

Results: Eight studies were included in the final dataset and seven were included in summary analyses. The sensitivity of SF height measurement for SGA (BW < 10(th) percentile) prediction ranged from 0.27 to 0.76 and specificity ranged from 0.79 to 0.92. Positive and negative likelihood ratios ranged from 1.91 to 9.09 and from 0.29 to 0.83, respectively.

Conclusions: SF height can serve as a clinical indicator along with other clinical findings, information about medical conditions, and previous obstetric history. However, SF height has high false-negative rates for SGA. Clinicians must understand the limitations of this test. The protocol has been registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews, PROSPERO (Registration No. CRD42014008928, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42014008928 ).

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram. PRISMA flow diagram of studies through the review.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Summary receiving operating characteristic plot. Summary receiving operating characteristic plot of symphysis-fundus height measurement for the prediction of small-for-gestational-age status (birth weight < 10th percentile).

References

    1. Frøen JF, Gardosi JO, Thurmann A, Francis A, Stray-Pedersen B. Restricted fetal growth in sudden intrauterine unexplained death. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2004;83(9):801–7. doi: 10.1080/j.0001-6349.2004.00602.x.
    1. Goldenberg RL, Hoffman HJ, Cliver SP. Neurodevelopmental outcome of small-for-gestational-age infants. Eur J Clin Nutr. 1998;52(Suppl 1):S54–8.
    1. Selling KE, Carstensen J, Finnstrom O, Sydsjo G. Intergenerational effects of preterm birth and reduced intrauterine growth: a population-based study of Swedish mother-offspring pairs. BJOG. 2006;113(4):430–40. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00872.x.
    1. Simchen MJ, Beiner ME, Strauss-Liviathan N, Dulitzky M, Kuint J, Mashiach S, et al. Neonatal outcome in growth-restricted versus appropriately grown preterm infants. Am J Perinatol. 2000;17(4):187–92. doi: 10.1055/s-2000-9423.
    1. Lindqvist PG, Molin J. Does antenatal identification of small-for-gestational age fetuses significantly improve their outcome? Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2005;25(3):258–64. doi: 10.1002/uog.1806.
    1. Sosial- og helsedirektoratet . Retningslinjer for svangerskapsomsorgen [Guidelines for antenatal care] ( in Norwegian) Oslo: Sosial- og helsedirektoratet; 2005.
    1. Sundhedsstyrelsen . Anbefalinger for svangreomsorgen [Recomendations for antenatal care] (in Danish) København: Sundhedsstyrelsen; 2013.
    1. Svensk förening för obstetrik och gynekologi . Mödrahälsovård, sexuell och reproduktiv hälsa [Antenatal care, sexual and reproductive health] (in Swedish) Stockholm: SFOG; 2008.
    1. Steingrimsdottir T, Cnattingius S, Lindmark G. Symphysis-fundus height: construction of a new Swedish reference curve, based on ultrasonically dated pregnancies. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1995;74(5):346–51. doi: 10.3109/00016349509024426.
    1. Westin B. Gravidogram and fetal growth. Comparison with biochemical supervision. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1977;56(4):273–82. doi: 10.3109/00016347709154978.
    1. Robert Peter J, Ho JJ, Valliapan J, Sivasangari S. Symphysial fundal height (SFH) measurement in pregnancy for detecting abnormal fetal growth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;7:CD008136.
    1. Morse K, Williams A, Gardosi J. Fetal growth screening by fundal height measurement. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2009;23(6):809–18. doi: 10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2009.09.004.
    1. Belizan JM, Villar J, Nardin JC. Diagnosis of intrauterine growth retardation by a simple clinical method: measurement of uterine height. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1978;131(6):643–6.
    1. Quaranta P, Currell R, Redman CWG, Robinson JS. Prediction of small-for-dates infants by measurement of symphysial-fundal-height. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1981;88(2):115–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1981.tb00952.x.
    1. Wallin A, Gyllensward A, Westin B. Symphysis-fundus measurement in prediction of fetal growth disturbances. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1981;60(3):317–23. doi: 10.3109/00016348109158139.
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1–34. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Open Med. 2009;3(3):e123–30.
    1. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–12. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008.
    1. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529–36. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009.
    1. Whiting PF, Weswood ME, Rutjes AW, Reitsma JB, Bossuyt PN, Kleijnen J. Evaluation of QUADAS, a tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:9. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-9.
    1. Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews in health care: systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ. 2001;323(7305):157–62. doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7305.157.
    1. Macaskill P, Gatsonis C, Deeks JJ, Harbord RM, Takwoingi Y. Chapter 10: analysing and presenting results. In: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2010.
    1. Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA. A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med. 2001;20(19):2865–84. doi: 10.1002/sim.942.
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–60. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.
    1. Calvert JP, Crean EE, Newcombe RG, Pearson JF. Antenatal screening by measurement of symphysis-fundus height. Br Med J. 1982;285(6345):846–9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.285.6345.846.
    1. Cnattingius S. Antenatal screening for small-for-gestational-age, using risk factors and measurements of the symphysis-fundus distance - 6 Years of experience. Early Hum Dev. 1988;18(2–3):191–7. doi: 10.1016/0378-3782(88)90056-4.
    1. Jensen OH, Larsen S. Evaluation of symphysis-fundus measurements and weighing during pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1991;70(1):13–6. doi: 10.3109/00016349109006170.
    1. Pearce JM, Campbell S. A comparison of symphysis-fundal height and ultrasound as screening tests for light-for-gestational age infants. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1987;94(2):100–4. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1987.tb02333.x.
    1. Persson B, Stangenberg M, Lunell NO. Prediction of size of infants at birth by measurement of symphysis fundus height. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1986;93(3):206–11. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1986.tb07894.x.
    1. Rogers MS, Needham PG. Evaluation of fundal height measurement in antenatal care. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 1985;25(2):87–90. doi: 10.1111/j.1479-828X.1985.tb00614.x.
    1. Rosenberg K, Grant JM, Tweedie I. Measurement of fundal height as a screening test for fetal growth retardation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1982;89(6):447–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1982.tb03634.x.
    1. Stuart JM, Healy TJ, Sutton M, Swingler GR. Symphysis-fundus measurements in screening for small-for-dates infants: a community based study in Gloucestershire. J R Coll Gen Pract. 1989;39(319):45–8.
    1. Goto E. Prediction of low birthweight and small for gestational age from symphysis-fundal height mainly in developing countries: a meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013;67(12):999–1005. doi: 10.1136/jech-2012-202141.
    1. Gardosi J, Francis A. Controlled trial of fundal height measurement plotted on customised antenatal growth charts. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;106(4):309–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1999.tb08267.x.
    1. Skrastad RB, Eik-Nes SH, Sviggum O, Johansen OJ, Salvesen KA, Romundstad PR, et al. A randomized controlled trial of third-trimester routine ultrasound in a non-selected population. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2013;92(12):1353–60. doi: 10.1111/aogs.12249.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren